Kudos to transwoman Joanna Harper for debating the science around male performance advantage in trans-athletes. Listen to the interview when it's broadcast on Saturday 9th between 10-11am on @bbcworldservice
-
Show this thread
-
Joanna Harper is the author of the study that the
@IOC based its decision on to allow male-born trans athletes to compete against females after reducing Testosterone to 10nM for 12 months. This study is not relevant, robust or independent. http://www.sportsci.org/2016/WCPASabstracts/ID-1699.pdf …pic.twitter.com/Td0a3nkEkk
4 replies 32 retweets 100 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @fairplaywomen @ioc
If this is the complete data you are showing its scientifically irresponsible for the IOC to make any conclusion based on it. One might even have trouble mechanically running an appropriate analysis on the data let alone make valid inference.
#badscience5 replies 11 retweets 61 likes -
Yep, 8 sub-elite mid/distance runners. This is what people mean when they say ‘The IOC looked at ALL THE DATA, listen to them’.
4 replies 9 retweets 49 likes -
Replying to @FondOfBeetles @lo_stats and
Is that supposed to be a serious study!? If so, it's utterly bonkers. Eg, we don't know anything about respective training loads before the 2 races. Or anything about a myriad of other potentially confounding variables.
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @lo_stats and
2 minute read. https://www.sportsci.org/2016/WCPASabstracts/ID-1699.pdf# …
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @FondOfBeetles @PhilosophyExp and
I don't think I've ever seen such high p values quoted in a published study! p=1 means data is no more than random chance. p<0.05 is valid result. The Harper study is recording p values of 0.84 and 0.68!! https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e6a/bd2c1e03ba88e9ac8da94ea1d69ff3f4878a.pdf?_ga=2.254440527.659551599.1550520323-1192624875.1550520323 …pic.twitter.com/Twp4KfJA72
2 replies 5 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @fairplaywomen @FondOfBeetles and
Yes, but they're trying to make the point there isn't a significant difference. That's a win for them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @fairplaywomen and
If a reasonable scientist was there, they should of asked what was the design's ability to detect meaningful differences. The answer would of not been convincing.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
You know all this, of course, but there seems to be some confusion. Problem here isn't p-values. We don't even get that far because design is hopeless. Absolutely zero control of confounding variables.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.